SCREEN-L Archives

July 1994


Options: Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"P.G. Springer" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
P.G. Springer
Sun, 10 Jul 1994 17:16:10 -0500
text/plain (33 lines)
On Sun, 10 Jul 1994, MECHAR,KYLE WILLIAM,MR wrote:
If those who addreess me with hostility are truly interested in
> alternative r4eadings of the film, I have a vey lengthy chapter on this
> that Im sending out for publication. Im still amazed that some people
> think it is enough that gays are being represented to the mainstream at
> all.
No hostility was intended toward anyone -- well, maybe toward he who
stated that "Tom Hanks must be stopped!"
And I understand your position, Edward R.  Thanks for reiterating it,
although I'm sorry you couldn't enjoy the values in Philadelphia.
The real problem with Philadelphia (or the thorn for some critics, I
suppose) is that it is a commercial movie.  It was made to make money,
and that is bound to rankle when such sensitive issues are on display.
If the same script had been filmed by Craig Lucas, with a cast of unknowns,
it wouldn't have won any Academy Awards, but it probably would have been
praised endlessly on this mailing list.
What amazes ME is the way some
people insist on reading Philadelphia and a dozen other movies with gay
characters integrated into them as movies ABOUT gayness... and then get
upset when they don't match their expectations of what gayness means or
how it should be portrayed.  The gay cowboys in
Tombstone, for example, didn't get wide mention, but they were there,
quietly constructing the integrated image landscape that may someday
realize a form of color and orientation blindness, provided we don't keep
insisting that things be shown a certain, "proper" way.